Jump to content

Talk:2006 Lebanon War/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12→Archive 15

Discussion about the structure and general content of the article

Video of Hezbollah firing missiles

On YouTube there are several video's of Hezbollah firing a cruise missiles, and the Noor anti-ship missile that hit the israeli ship (huge blast). There is also another video where Hezbollah fires a land-to-air missile and hits an Israeli aircraft, it also shows the aircraft (i dont know what it is, but its large and it looks weird). Should I add it? (in thumbnail form/'click-to-view' way, if you know what I mean). ArmanJan 19:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes Hello32020 19:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Arggh, wikipedia doesnt allow embedded objects. Is it possible to upload video's to wikipedia and then embed them? Anyway, here are the two links Hezbollah launches cruise missiles and Noor anti-ship missile, hits israeli ship and Hezbollah knocks down (possibly using Misagh-2) an Israeli aircraft ArmanJan 20:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

woah .. a bit too anxious again there, ArmanJan, my friend. The Israeli army has denied this to be any sort of an Israeli aircraft. In fact, they believe this to be a failed launch of a Zelzal-2 missile by the Hezbollah, which has similiar features of the Scud missile. --Dberliner 21:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Israel says lot's of things. In the video you see a Misagh-1 (or2) (maybe even another type) being launched, it then hits the UFO and you then see it crash. Take a good look for the land-to-air missile trail. ArmanJan 21:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
PS: the UFO you see on the ground seems the size of 10 Zelzal-2's, Zelzal-2 is only 60cm wide. ArmanJan
Just wondering how you came to that conclusion? I just checked out that video and the apparent size of the object being filmed's diameter matches 60cm quite closely. FYI 10 x 60cm is 6 meters, or twice the size of the solid rocket boosters used to launch the space shuttle! -Shogun 06:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
The pipe is not the only part of the UFO, around them are the rest of the parts. Also, how do you explain the anti-aircraft missile trail, the UFO being hit and then crashing? ArmanJan 11:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I didn't note any other debris in the immediate vicinty and anyway it looks like it was a missile article The officials said Israeli aircraft targeted a truck carrying the weapons before they could be launched. The force of the blast sent one missile flying into the air, but it fell nearby. Israeli officials said the destroyed missile was an Iranian-made Zilzal, which has a range of about 120kms. Also it appears the video was a combination of two different events at different times joined together, note the discontinuity between the missile launch the the object falling (I should this is my own observation from watching the low quality youtube video). -Shogun 15:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Maybe you are right, but I am sure I saw an aircraft on BBC. It was falling to the ground like a bullerfly missing one wings (turning around) after it got hit by a missile. ArmanJan 16:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, Israel does tend to depict the truth to its best, usually. Part of being a democracy, and therefore being exposed to great internal media scrutiny (and the Israeli journalists are doing that just great). When they were attacked before or had lost lives or machinery, they have admitted it or were forced to admit it pretty fast by the internal mechanism of democracy and freedom of press, which I have mentioned above. Therefore I am assuming there is no reason to believe otherwise in this case. Dberliner

Now they're shooting down UFO's. The Alpha Centaurans will no doubt enter the conflict. Seriously, I have not read that the Hezbolli have cruise missiles, only various rockets. The terms are not interchangeable.Edison 04:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Hezbollah rocket campaign

Hello all. A deficiency in this article which just jumps out at me is the lack of detailing of the Hezbollah rocket campaign on equal footing as the Israeli bombing campaign. The result is that the Israeli campaign is mentioned once as the response and then again in relation to civilian casualties, while the Hezbollah rockets are only mentioned in the civilians section. Someone who does not read the civilians section will not be aware of this aspect of the hostilities, which is a central part of every mainstream news report, and is listed as one of Israel's conditions for ceasing hostilities. Surely this should be corrected. I'm waiting eagerly for feedback, and am beginning to put something together. Cheers, TewfikTalk 18:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. The section on Israeli damage to civilians quotes numerous people - none from Israel - and goes into tiny detail illustrated with pictures of destruction. The section on Hezbollah bombings starts with a quote from Nasrallah (one in which he is most likely lying, too) - no quotes from Israel - and is a generic overview illusrated with a contour map. Why aren't there any pictures of Hezbollah firing rockets, or of damaged residential buildings in Haifa and other cities? Why isn't there any mention of Hezbollah rockets loaded with shrapnel? Why aren't there any quotes from Israeli sources - do Shiite militants have more credibility, or what? The whole article is lopsided.

Criticism of both sides

Any suggestions for the best way to discuss the quotes that criticise both Hezbollah and Israel? I've quoted them below:

Louise Arbour, United Nations high commissioner for human rights, expressed "grave concern over the continued killing and maiming of civilians in Lebanon, Israel and the occupied Palestinian territory." She suggested that the actions of Israel and Hezbollah may constitute war crimes. [1][2][3] Arbour called for Israel to obey a "principle of proportionality" and said, "indiscriminate shelling of cities constitutes a foreseeable and unacceptable targeting of civilians … Similarly, the bombardment of sites with alleged military significance, but resulting invariably in the killing of innocent civilians, is unjustifiable."

One day after the call for a ceasefire by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan on 20 July 2006, a U.N.-run observation post located near Zarit, Israel near the Lebanese border was hit by direct fire during fighting between Israel and the Hezbollah militia. The Israeli army claimed Hezbollah rockets hit the U.N. post; however, a U.N. officer claimed that the post "was hit by an Israeli artillery shell."[4]

Cheers, TewfikTalk 19:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Someone just removed (justifiably?) the duplicated statements. Could somebody please suggest an NPOV method of accomplishing this? TewfikTalk 21:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


pre-planning for the war

Does anyone know how much there is to this : [1] "Israel set war plan more than a year ago Strategy was put in motion as Hezbollah began increasing its military strength"--Paraphelion 18:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Most countries have plans for every war they think possible or likely. The US had plans to invade Canada and Mexico and to fight Britain for many decades in the 2oth century. That didn't mean they were ever on the verge of doing it. It would be astounding if Israel did not keep up to date plans to fight any or all of their neighbors, given several wars in the last 56 years.Edison 00:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

If Israel had a plan against Hezbollah it is definitely using it now. To know that Israel is currently carrying out a plan it has been working on over the past year is certainly noteworthy, both for the critics and proponents of Israels actions. --Axgoss 01:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Hell in a Hand Basket

What happened? This article was heading towards some sort of understandable structure a few days ago, but when I came in today it seems over the course of 4 days the article has come unglued. Its unpleasant to look at and lacks any semblance of a flow. The picture warring has continued to where people keep putting up a map as an image rather than anything good, like artillery or katyusha firing. Did something happen over these 4 days where an image of artillery firing became unacceptable? If not, why does it continually get removed? ~Rangeley (talk) 20:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The edit wars have really burned a lot of time/energy particularly the main picture. Remember i said a few days ago we should have the map as otherwise someone would be pissed enough with the picture (whatever it is!!!) to edit war over it. This is the most emotionally charged (in the outside world) conflict at the moment if not in the history of the world. Most people have strong views on this whole situation, most countries in the world are affected (oil price being one example) by these events. I just dont think you understand how important this is to some people, and that this very page is one of the battlefields of this conflict. Yes artillery firing is unacceptable to enough people that it should be respected and a map shows more usful information. I really do not understand the value of or the need for a COOL picture of something, especially as this causes so much trouble for SO little gain.Hypnosadist 23:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry, but we do not let people with agendas other than making the best article determine what we can and cannot show. People are emotionally charged, and they will be that way about the casualty numbers, about what the casus belli is, about the title. If the only objection to something is that it doesnt portray the war in the fashion they want it to be, we can ignore them. If they edit without base, we revert them, just like we would rvert the person who put the goatse-esque image up. An image of artillery being fired is the best image we have at this time that is free or qualifies for fair use. As time progresses we will get better and better images. THe map is no "safe alternative" that everyone likes, people have objected to it and it was already determined, when you first brought it up, that it is not the best thing to have up there. ~Rangeley (talk) 13:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
1)Npov is an important principle that applies to pictures as much the words, bet you did not like the little red horse picture, that was your pov(if you didn't several people did, and that was thier pov). Someone else wants a dead lebanise kid pic to show the REALITY of the war, others want rocket crators in Haifa, its all pov. 2)What does one picture (of anything) achieve that is worth the wikistress that this is causing? Its a complete waste of time and energy hence why i have never edited the pic or done a revert.3) I'm bringing the map up a second time as after 100's of pointless changes of picture the conflict is still ongoing, it will continue, because this issue is so charged.4)Many more people seem to support the map over any given picture(as apposed to the total number of people who want thier picture).Hypnosadist 13:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
On what basis? A picture of a red toy in the rubble does indeed outline the true nature of the war, and is not POV. Artillery being fired is not POV. Katyusha being fired is not POV. I would take any of these images over a map that shows nothing more than the "Location: Lebanon and northern Israel" does. Maps are only used in the infobox when outlining major troops movements and strategy, neither of which are happening now. I have frequently removed images if they were not free/fair use, even if they were infact better. You should not worry about accomodating people who edit with incorrect basis. We should always use the best image. ~Rangeley (talk) 13:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion about strength of participants

Does anyone have anything about the strength of the participants here? Seems funny if there are casualties, but no strength to start off with in the first place. A previous similar post on this subject was deleted as "irrelevant" by an anon. --Terrancommander 04:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I was just going to restore this section, but you beat me to it. It appears your question was originally deleted because the information was covered in one of the first 2 archived sections of this Talkpage. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 04:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, thank you for the effort. But I raised this question because the infobox doesn't show anything about it yet. :D --Terrancommander 15:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I put a start towards this on the other article on the military conflict. I found info on the Israeli number of planes, but there is needed verifiable source for Hezbollah rocket arsenal, also manpower, artillery, other equipment, and need info for Lebanese armed forces if they enter the conflict.Edison 04:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Edits around 1948 and terms

I've just edited the beginning two paragraphs for three items: 1) Starting the conflict after the 1948 war is disengenous. The facts that the Arab League and Lebanon commenced fighting before Israeli independence and formally declared war on Israel are of key importance to the discussion

2) I deleted the reference to the number of current refugees. The UNHCR, the body managed all refugee situations except the Palestinians, does not count descendents as refugees. They're citizens of the new country. That UNWRA chose differently obscures the ability to reasonably compare refugee issues around the world. As a compromise, I even left in the 110,000 number that's totally unconfirmed.

3) I changed "militant" to "terrorist" in the second pararagraph. Wikipedia defines it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist and to claim it doesn't fit only when attacking Israel is not balanced. They call for the destruction of a sovereign State and directly target civilians. They are not militants.

User:ithinktfiamTalk 10:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

1) This is not the article about the 1948 war.
2) Children of refugees born in foreign countries are not automatically given citizenship.
3) Calling for destruction of the enemy and directly targeting civilians is in no way incompatible with being a militant. Zocky | picture popups 09:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Why not just call them "Good Guys" and "Bad Guys?" Equally POV. On the other hand, many sources have observed that Israel is seeking to destroy a sovereign state and is attacking civilians, so what does that make them?Edison 04:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The nuance is between attacking and targeting. Israel kills civilians when the civilians get in the way, but does not want civilian deaths, and dropped fliers telling all civilians to move away from Hizbollah or else their lives will be endangered. Hizbollah, on the other hand, purposely targets civilians in Haifa and northern Israeli villages. --Doom777 02:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:V and WP:RS

This whole section:

===Claims of white phosphorus use by Israeli forces=== On 16 July Lebanese President Emile Lahoud claimed Israeli forces have used "phosphorus incendiary bombs, which are a violation of international laws, … against Lebanese civilians."[5][6][7] Information Minister Ghazi Aridi also said, "Israel is using internationally prohibited weapons against civilians."[5][6][8] President Lahoud and Minister Aridi's claims remain unverified.[9] The deliberate use of incendiary weapons against civilians is prohibited by the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, Protocol III[10], which has not been signed by Israel or any other party in the conflict. The use of incendiary weapons against military targets is not regulated by that treaty.

Is a violation of WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NOR - can someone find creadiable information about this subject before pushing it into the article ? Zeq 11:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the problem. The article does not say that white phosphorus has been used, it says that the president of Lebanon says that white phosphorus has been used. The latter is verifiable. In the same manner, there are claims being made that there are Iranian military in Lebanon helping Hizbollah. That is not verifiable either, but we can note that the claim has been made. --Battra 11:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Though maybe we could describe this claim with one or two sentences instead of a whole section. --Battra 12:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


Such an extremely important fact cannot be left out. The claim is not being made from the fringes but by the Prime Minister of one of the combatants. This is extremely newsworthy and belongs in the article as such, althought I agree that the presentation has to be worked on, along with Israeli denials, if any.
Now, you cite a violation of WP:V. You seem not to understand WP:V: it explicitly states that verifiability, not truth, is what wiki is about. Planty of soucers that meet WP:RS standards were provided. You might think they lie, but thats your POV: to any rational person they meet WP:RS.
Which brings me to the other, you claim it violates WP:RS. It doesn't. Daily Star and Al-Jazeera are both recognized news outlets, with international reach and jornalistic standards. Sure, they do represent the POV of Lebanon in a better light, but Ynet, Haaretz and Jerusalem Post all present Israeli POV in a better light, and I dont see you saying they are not WP:RS.
Lastly, you cite WP:OR. I have read and re-read the section and cannot find WP:OR violations. None. All statements are sourced by WP:RS compliant sources, and no statements beyond those on the originals, or approximate allowed rewrites is present.
Someone pointed out to me that maybe you think the explanation at the bottom was a WP:NOR because it didnt have WP:RS sources. This is ludicrous: the paragraph is almost verbatim from the well sourced page on the "Protocol" in Wikipedia, and is linked to that article. Far from being original research, it is a reference to a wikipage. To eliminate confusion am adding a seealso.
Please before citing wikipedia policies, try to grasp what they are really about, and read them, you obviously havent. I will admit I have been guilty of this in the path, but we can all learn, and I hope you do too.--Cerejota 13:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not aplace where one sided unproven accusation should be used. WP:V and WP:RS are clear to the type of sources that should be used in contriversial subjects. Also just bring quotes from UN laws is good for an article about these laws but in the context of this article it is clearly WP:OR (unless you have a realiable source quoting this in connection with this very crisis). Zeq 03:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
It is a collection of facts, not an opinion. It is therefore not OR. --Iorek85 04:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Zeq, we have all kinds of unproven, one-sided, declarations on the page, from all sides. For example, the allegation by the ISraeli chief of staff of over 100 Hizbollah dead has not been confirmed. Yet, we include them because they are important declarations by important actors, and are provided by WP:RS and WP:V. Remember that WP:V establishes that verifiability not truth is what matters.
As to the WP:OR objection, Iorek85 is correct, but furthermore, if we where to use your logic, we would have to remove the entire "Background information" section as WP:OR, which we all agree would be stupid.
We have to include this background information to balance the reporting of the claim, so readers to reach their conclusions with full information.--Cerejota 05:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Blank references

There are quite a few blank references (they are given names but go nowhere). Are they O.K to delete? --Iorek85 09:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

yes. -- tasc wordsdeeds 09:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

In the infobox there is a reference "Israel says soldiers killed in clash with Hezbollah", KBCI 2, concerning the Israeli military casualities. The page doesn't exist anymore, but from the link is recognizable that it was an AP news. Any updated source info for this available?

Names of operations in the preamble?

Well, the preamble should say the most important stuff with as few words as possible. Now the preamble contains this:

"On 12 July 2006 Hezbollah initiated Operation Truthful Promise, named for a "promise" by its leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, to capture Israeli soldiers and swap them for the remaining three Lebanese held by Israel, mainly Samir Kuntar. Israel then responded with Operation Just Reward, later renamed Operation Change of Direction."

Maybe all these names could be moved to other sections of the article, as they doesn't really contain any information regarding what is happening? --Battra 11:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Splitting up the article

As the article seems to get larger and larger, I suggest that it is splitted into different articles. At least Casualties section can be removed without breaking the integrity of the article. Internatinal reaction has already own article, now it has way too much text on this side; same goes to the Military operations section.--JyriL talk 00:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's getting too big. I think we should shorten the history and 'international reaction' section. Despite having their own pages, they seem to be getting longer and longer. 200 references is way too many! --Iorek85 09:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, many things have to be cut down. I want to do that eventually, unless someone opposes. --Doom777 02:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

"Roles of non-combatant State and non-State actors in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict"

I have created stub article on Roles of non-combatant State and non-State actors in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. The reason is that while I support the deletion of the "Role of Iran and Syria..." article, the debate there did raise a good point, which is that there is a need to discuss the roles of non-combatant State and non-State actors this conflict, and that such discussion could be too big for this main page, so a relevant, NPOV page seems to be needed. Remember: the page must remain NPOV and balanced, and is now a stub, so it will take some time for a good page to emerge.

Besides the already mentioned support of Hezbollah by Syria and Iran, I think we should discuss US support to Israel and the Israeli political parties, and to US and Israeli support of political parties and militias in Lebanon. Additionally, we would have, of course, to discuss Israeli support of the Lebanese Forces and the Phalange, and its funding and operational leadership of an assasination squad responsible for a number of high visibility assassinations of Lebanese unsympathetic to Israeli views. Etc, etc, etc.--Cerejota 22:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

claims, claims, claims, is claimed to.... (add this words to your second paragraph, and it'll be NPOVM. Butterfly 17:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Introductory paragraph

The paragraph has gone to hell, its full of POV, and unnecesary details that should go to other sections. For example, I suggest moving the details of the Lebanese prisioners in Israel to the "Background" section, and rewirting for POV. Again people, I think we are missing the point, NPOV and balance are important, but so is article quality, please when you edit have this in mind: there are almost 5 subpages, and 10 sections and subsections, pleas eput your contributions where they go. Intro should be short, have no major details, and only mention things that are really relevant to the WHOLE article, not to part of it, like motives etc.--Cerejota 13:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Missing from this article

Hizbula has been hiting israeli towns and cities along the border for a long time (once evety few month an israeli was killed by rockets). The new longer range and the kidnaping of the 2 soldiesr are just the last straw that brought Israel to fight back. Zeq 04:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

True. This should go in the background - the fighting at the end of May. Just find a good citation for it. M. Butterfly 16:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Some thoughts on the civilian section

many things are out of place in this section. First, the following piece:

"On 25 July 2006 a UN peacekeeping force was hit by Israel rocket fire, prompting UN Secretary General Kofi Annan to charge, "I am shocked and deeply distressed by the apparently deliberate targeting by Israeli defence forces of a UN Observer post in southern Lebanon that has killed two UN military observers, with two more feared dead."[83] Daniel Ayalon, Israeli Ambassador to the U.S., responded, "This kind of rhetoric is deplorable — For anyone to jump into conclusions I think this is not a good way to conduct international diplomacy. … This is shocking that anyone, especially of that stature, somebody who has been in Israel, someone who knows our morals, who knows the conduct of the military … For him to level this accusation that it was deliberate, this is just outrageous and shocking, and I hope that he will apologize for that."[84] UNIFIL added that they believe Israeli forces continued to fire at close range even during the rescue operation.[85]"

Belongs in the "attacks on UN forces" section, and should be embedded there. Second, both the "Claims of phosphorus incendiary bomb use by Israeli forces" and the "Attacks on ambulances by Israeli forces" should be embedded in the "by Israel" section (either as subsections, or even in the text itself, as they are not very long and at least one of them repeats info that was already on top). Third, The "Opinions on civilian attacks" should be the last section of this section, after the UN attacks. Fourth, I believe that the AFP report (now that it's confirmed) should not be in the same paragraph as the Israeli position, as it is somewhat contradictory; maybe move it somewhere else. I would have made the changes myself, but as the topic is controversial, I will wait for commemnts on this talk page before making any changes. M. Butterfly 16:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Well one, you violated the WP:B policy by being afraid to modify it. ;) Second, it shouuld not be merged, because both Israel and Hezbollah attacked ambulances and UN members --Doom777 02:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

General Discussion

I am GOING THERE!

If you don't know I am a reporter for CNN. I am planning to travel to Tel-Aviv and then go north on Monday. I will be taking Delta Air Lines 152, for about 11 hours. I will depart at 10:45pm and get there around 530pm. I will give updates as they happen! WikieZach| talk 22:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Nice! Will you take pictures so we can do the composite pictures without copyright issues? ;p --Deenoe 23:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Dont get yourself killed there.Cameron Nedland 00:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok. I will take pictures and will be careful. Thanks for caring. WikieZach| talk 02:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Sure no problem.Cameron Nedland 02:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Change of flight plans. Could leave tonight. WikieZach| talk 20:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a blog. Also, stay safe. (Bjorn Tipling 03:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC))

  • If you have a spouse, then it won't get stipends if you die unless you're a Muslim and become a martyr.

Though, in Islam, only females get paid provided that they dress like mullahs + headscarf instead of a turban.

<It's called humor.>--Patchouli 04:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Patchouli: get a blog and post your "humor" there.--Cerejota 04:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Cerejota, quit being such a cry-baby. --NoRCaLD503 04:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Be safe 82.29.227.171 00:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Front Line Photographs Section - concerns re clear breach of NPOV

This section is in clear breach of the Wiki NPOV guidelines. I see nothing encyclopedic about pushing blatant Hezbollah propaganda websites. Its not only against NPOV policy I think its almost spamming!! User Ilike2beanonymous is reverting more than 3 times and an admin should take a close look at his/her work please203.15.73.3 05:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The links are to websites with unedited photographs that cannot be published in Wikipedia as per policy, but are relevant to this page. If you are upset that they show only Lebanese children dead, please post links to websites showing pictures of Israeli children dead.
Policy doesn't require that the websites we link to be NPOV, but that they be relevant. And these websites are the very definition of relevant.--Cerejota 05:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. I'm completely with Cerejota on this one. Those pictures (while very disturbing) are pictures of the damage. It'd be nice to have some of the damage in Israel, but in no way are they POV. (Apart from the POV that killing and injuring people is bad). --Iorek85 05:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
This is an outrageous misrepresentation of these relevant Israeli and Lebanese blogs, none of which have a thing to do with Hezbollah and in fact are highly critical of their actions. Here is one example, pointing to a Fouad Ajami analysis of Nasrallah's decision in the Wall Street Journal. Even if there were any "blatant Hezbollah propaganda" (please do show us some), these blogs have been an important aspect of the story, and have been mentioned and featured in numerous news reports. Furthermore, just about every Wikipedia article has pointers to such blogs and website if they are relevant. The graphic images are from the news services: compare the images on the website stopdestroyinglebanon.com to this Macleans article. These images are highly relevant, and anyone who believes that these images are fabricated is living in a fantasy world, or worse. The relevant blogs and images should stay. AdamKesher 13:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
The issue is not whether or not the images are fabricated. It's about reliable sources. Correct information may sometimes occur in unreliable sources.--Denis Diderot 13:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Therefore, we should delete links to relevant blogs and images here and throughout every other Wikipedia article? AdamKesher 13:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. Unless they are reliable sources. And we can't verify their accuracy without doing original research. -Denis Diderot 14:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Reductio ad absurdum. I'll agree then that we should delete these relevant web links just as soon as Wikipedia institutes this to be its official policy and declares that such links are to be deleted from every Wikipedia article. Until that day, the relevant blogs and images should stay in this article. AdamKesher 14:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Please do not remove without discussion.--Cerejota 07:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

A user alleged WP:EL and WP:RS violations, but failed to list them here, and furthermore, I don't see them.--Cerejota 07:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
"unverified original research" (WP:EL) Refers to WP:RS: "At the other end of the reliability scale lie personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards, and Usenet posts, which are typically not acceptable as sources." --Denis Diderot 07:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
The pictures aren't being used as sources, just links, and therefore don't fall under WP:RS. They come under "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as textbooks." As for removing the blogs, I've no mind either way. I can see arguments for both sides on that one.--Iorek85 08:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
No sorry, the principle of verifiablity is fundamental and applies to external links as well. It's OK to link to opinion sites if they are "prominent sites" (i.e. major web sites) that clearly (verifiably) represent the sides in a conflict, e.g. an official Hezbollah site and an official IDF site. (In this case they are reliable sources of opinions.) Are you really comparing these websites to scientific textbooks? Perhaps you're just joking? --Denis Diderot 08:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
In the external links that are "normally to be avoided", I can only see arguments for "Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research. (See Wikipedia:Reliable sources for further information on this guideline.) but they are photos, not random ideas and loony ramblings. And yes, I'm comparing them to scientific textbooks, because, as I quoted, they both provide "meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article". You don't think firsthand pictures of the destruction are relevant? But hey, show me the official IDF page that shows the damage caused by bombing on both sides, and I'll gladly support that for inclusion. --Iorek85 09:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Meaningfull relevant content? I'd rather say fabricated, randomly compiled propaganda. -- tasc wordsdeeds 09:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
From my comment above: The graphic images are from the news services: compare the images on the website stopdestroyinglebanon.com to this Macleans article. These images are highly relevant, and anyone who believes that these images are fabricated is living in a fantasy world, or worse. The relevant blogs and images should stay. AdamKesher 13:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Fine, leave them out. While I have no doubt the vast majority of the photos are real, I can't prove it. --Iorek85 09:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Adam, the issue is not whether or not the images are fabricated. It's about reliable sources. Correct information may sometimes occur in unreliable sources, but we can't verify their accuracy without doing original research. These are fundamental Wikipedia policies.(WP:RSWP:VWP:NOR) --Denis Diderot 14:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
None of these wise policies applies to identifying the existence of commentary or information outside of Wikipedia, which is all these links do, just like every other Wikipedia articles with such pointers. If something in the main article was based on these blogs or images, then you would have a point, but this is not the case. AdamKesher 14:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
The links are inside Wikipedia. That's the whole point. Please read what the policy says: "Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research. (See Wikipedia:Reliable sources for further information on this guideline.)" "Unverified" is defined by WP:RS Also Wikipedia is not a web directory. People can find interesting links elsewhere or through a search engine. --Denis Diderot 15:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
As I said above, I'll agree then that we should delete these relevant web links just as soon as Wikipedia institutes this to be its official policy and declares that such links are to be deleted from every Wikipedia article. To prove my point that such links are an essential, useful, and relevant part of almost every single Wikipedia article, I'll just go at random to today's featured article, Lastovo. Oh look! It too has a section of External_links. Until the day that all such links are deleted from Wikipedia, the relevant blogs and images should stay in this article. AdamKesher 16:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
You may disagree with Wikipedia policies as much as you like, but if you are to edit articles here you must follow them anyway. It is offical policy already. It's just that you don't care. And the policy says that yes, we can have many external links, but not links to sites that contain "unverified original research". What is it you don't understand?--Denis Diderot 17:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Please return the courtesy of responding to the content of my statements, which refute your application of these wise Wikipedia rules to pointing out the existence of outside information, just as is done in almost every other Wiki article. AdamKesher 17:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
"Yes we may have external links". This quote from my previous reply means there may be many links to "outside information", as you call it. But not all types of websites should be linked to. Clear? --Denis Diderot 17:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
The rules you cite pertain to sources used within the article. A bland assertion of the fact, with pointers, that other information exists outside Wikipedia, is commonplace. In fact, in your own deletions of this information (Revision as of 07:15, 24 July 2006, Revision as of 08:54, 24 July 2006, Revision as of 12:59, 24 July 2006), you left several other websites alone—websites which could just as well be argued to be unverifiable and original research. The fact that you appear to wish to apply Wikipedia's rules unevenly opens the question if there are other reasons unrelated to Wikipedia policy behind the push to delete all reference to relevent blogs and images from the war. AdamKesher 18:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
The rules I cite apply to external links, I'm not going to say this again. I've already provided relevant quotes. Please read them. I removed some links that obviously didn't conform to Wikipedia standards. It's quite possible that I should have removed more. If you find any, don't hesitate to delete them yourself. --Denis Diderot 18:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
You merely cited rules without explaining why they apply to the mere mention of the existence of external blogs and photography. Based on your arguments, we must delete mention of the existence of any external link whose veracity cannot be verified. For example, here are the external links to Scientology, which includes the critical Operation Clambake. According to your application of Wikipedia's rules, this link should be deleted, an action I can guarantee would be immediately reverted. And for good reason: it's relevant, informative, and provides plausible and reliable information. Can't you see that the solution to this problem is to have a place for frontline Israeli and Lebanese blogs, and let the Wikipedians decide for themselves which blogs stand up to the test of providing relevant, plausible, and reliable information? If someone deletes a blog that is tendentious or crummy, I sure won't stand up for it. But let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater: there are excellent websites in Israel and Lebanon providing a realtime perspective of the facts on the ground—a pointer to these belongs in a free and open encyclopedia. AdamKesher 19:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Skip your cheap strawman rhetoric. Read what I've actually written above. Then read the official policies. Then apply them. --Denis Diderot 19:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


Actually, I have read what you wrote and AdamKesher is not doing strawman. He in simply using analogy, bordering periously, but not quite on ad absurdum.
But he raises a valid point: since both sites you want deleted in reality contain pictures from press agencies and independent witneses, of news worthy events, of relevance to the page, I think you are substituing productive discussion of differences with name calling and wikilawyering.
I think those links are extremely relevant, and any NPOV issues can be resolved by posting similar websites from the Israeli side.
If these links are not included soon, I am raising a call for informal moderation of an editing dispute. This is the first real time I have seen outright genuine line-in-the-sand resistance to the inclusion of information here, regardless of POV.
I hope it doesn't come to that, but having read the arguments I remain completely, absolutely, 100% unconvinced that these links violate any Wikipedia policy, or that they are not relevant for inclusion and increase article quality.
The only issue I consider valid is the one regarding POV, but this is easy to resolve by including Israeli POV websites with similar content. If our interests is actually a quality article, I think we should all understand that showing some unbalancing while puting out news is more important than hiding and censoring news, as long as no policies are violated.
This is why I have tried to stay away from the "infobox picture" edit conflict: I care very little about that particular item, because it is ultimately irrelevant, whereas more important stuff, like having NPOV presentation, and having balance when needed, merit much more attention. Such as providing links to photos of civilian deaths in Lebanon, , just like photos of Israeli civilians dead are an undeniable, NPOV fact, and we must make every effort to include links to websites with them.--Cerejota 20:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Can I just make a simple point here: The section we are arguing about comes under "Links normally to be avoided". Point out where it says we can't use them.

And for another point, lets look at the WP:RS that we're debating.

  • Do the sources have an agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their report? Remember that conflicts of interest are not always explicitly exposed and bias is not always self-evident. However, that a source has strong views is not necessarily a reason not to use it, although editors should avoid using political groups with widely acknowledged extremist views, like Stormfront.org or Al-Qaeda. Groups like these may be used as primary sources only as sources about themselves or about their viewpoints, and even then with caution and sparingly.
  • Were they actually there? Be careful to distinguish between descriptions of events by eyewitnesses and by commentators. The former are primary sources; the latter secondary. Both can be reliable. (They are photos, so yeah, they were there.)
  • Find out what other people say about your sources.
  • Have they reported other facts reliably, including on different subjects? Cross-check with what you already know.
  • Are the publications available for other editors to check? We provide sources for our readers, so they must be accessible in principle, although not necessarily online. (The photos match other news sources).

To sum up, I see not one reason why those links can't be there. --Iorek85 23:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Therefore, is it now time to restore these links to relevant and timely information within the article? I propose that this be done, and will do so soon if I do not hear any substantive counter arguments to delete this information. AdamKesher 10:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Definitely, but I doubt it will be long before someone removes them, possibly even citing this very discussion as evidence to 'support' them. :( --Iorek85 10:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


I'll make one final attempt to clear this out. No Cerjota, this isn't wikilawyering. No Iorek85, that's not the only relevant section. Yes AdamKesher, the arguments are substantive.
(1) If someone wants do find these sites, it's very easy. Google for example. Wikipedia isn't a web directory. We should never include websites just because we think they are "relevant" or "informative".
(2) These websites are not reliable sources Some images and descriptions may be accurate and others not. It's obviously impossible to verfiy if the information on these websites is accurate or not without doing original research.
(3) They can't be included as opinion sites (as Cerjota seems to suggest). When such sites are included, they must be "prominent" (not blogs and the like), there must be balance, and the POV of each site should be clearly stated. It must be possible to verify which POV the website actually represents.
Why is this so difficult to understand? --Denis Diderot 11:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
We understand, just disagree.
(1) - That's exactly why we should link them. They provide a unique sorce, they are relevent, they are informative, and they directly relate to the article. If those aren't good reasons to link to the sites, I don't know what you think is.
(2) - That covers, I'm afraid, almost every site that is linked to on wikipedia. Have you double checked the BBCs facts? Some people don't think IMDB is a reliable source. Some people don't think Al Jazeera is a reliable source. We don't have to check every site to link to for accuracy (a) because we're not using them for references: and (b) because thats why we link to them - its our way of saying, every time - "this website says". There are no websites that you can absolutely guarantee are 100% accurate. Thats not a reason never to link them. And, even if you consider these websites less trustworthy than CNN, say (and I'd agree with you) the exceptional relevent nature of them counters that.
(3) - What is the opinion? Killing civilians is bad? They aren't opinion sites; they are collections of photographs. Even if they were, the bolded section in my quote shows we can, if they are important, link them. And, prominent? "although editors should avoid using political groups with widely acknowledged extremist views, like Stormfront.org or Al-Qaeda." that guideline seems to completely disagree. --Iorek85 11:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
As there are no new arguments against including relevant links to frontline blogs and photographs, I have included these in the 2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict#External_links. I did some quick editing from previous lists to just include those that appeared (to me) to be the highest quality and/or most relevant to current events. I also included a new Israeli and Lebanese blog. I hope that this section doesn't turn into a link dump -- please don't abuse this section -- it should represent links to the most relevant and well written commentary on this conflict. AdamKesher 12:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
There are arguments against it. please. don't add blogs. -- tasc wordsdeeds 12:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
We discussed Denis Diderot's arguments, and dispatched them to my satisfaction, and apparently others' too. You characterized these links above as "fabricated, randomly compiled propaganda." On what basis do you say this? I find every single link included to have relevant and plausible information, appropriate for an article discussing an ongoing event. What are your arguments against including these links to relevant and plausible frontline information from Israel and Lebanon? Until you step up and provide a convincing argument, please refrain from deleting information from the article. AdamKesher 12:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
You did not discuss anything. Mainly because there were no 'others'. This are not a frontline information because it's written not by someone who is doesn't know a thing. they full of emotion and hatred. -- tasc wordsdeeds 13:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
We have been discussing this for over a day now, and longer in edit comments. Where were you? Exactly what "emotion and hatred" are you referring to? I've included all the links below. AdamKesher 13:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

For the record, here are the links under question.

BEGIN

Frontline blogs

Israeli blogs

Lebanese blogs

Frontline photographs (Warning: Extemely graphic wartime imagery)

END

tasc, you have deleted this information twice without discussing it. If this dispute cannot be resolved by civil discussion, we will have to go to the next step. AdamKesher 13:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Cool, you've got some frontline photos from Israel too. Nice work, that should balance out the complaints of POV. Even less of a reason to delete them now. As for the blogs, they're important enough for news.com.au, I think they can stay in the article. Blogs, while I personally think they are overrated, do in this case provide a unique and important and relevant insight into the conflict. --Iorek85 13:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

And the first blog, the Mukataa blog, has its own entry here on Wikipedia, as does just about every other blog that people find to be relevant and informative (RedState, Daily Kos, etc.). This debate is obviously not about pointers to blogs on Wikipedia, but the desire to censor the information contained there. In the absence of a reasoned argument why these links should not appear, I'm reverting their deletion. Please refrain from deleting relevant information from the article without discussing it first. AdamKesher 13:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Denis Diderot has deleted these links without discussion (13:55, 25 July 2006 Denis Diderot (Talk | contribs) (rv to Dominick per talk)), and claims in his comments that this talk page is the basis for his edits when in fact the dispute is ongoing and we have been asking for reasoned, substantiated arguments from both Denis Diderot and tasc, to no avail. I have done my best to resolve this issue with civil discussion on this talk page, and have now referred the matter to Wikipedia's informal moderation: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-25 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. AdamKesher 15:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I note here that Denis Diderot has again deleted these links without discussion here, yet in his edit comments asserts that this has been done per the Talk page. This dispute is currently under information moderation: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-25 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. I will revert this deletion once today. AdamKesher 12:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I note the deletion of these links by Denis Diderot without discussion either on this talk page or the page of informal mediation given above. AdamKesher 12:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files, wp:not, wp:el.

Specificaly, "Blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace) and forums should generally not be linked to. However, there are exceptions, such as in cases where the article is about, or closely related to, the website itself, or where the website is of a particularly high standard." and "In general, any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article here would have once it becomes an example of brilliant prose.".

Unless the article is citing something, then we have to adress it by our standards for a simple external link. And those standards are high, with good reason. There is no reason to overide the style guide in this case. Blogs and 'news agrigators' should not be linked to. While they are blogging the conflict, our article is not closely tied to giving information on blog reporting, so they do not satisfy the requirments. --Barberio 13:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing to the policy in dispute so clearly. The links under question are:
  • closely related to the article itself
  • argued to be of a high standard (web collectives of writers, compendiums of news agency photos, etc.)
  • providing a unique resource of frontline observations beyond what the article can provide
These are all excellent reasons to provide these links, which are not a random dump of links somebody added, but argued to possess the qualities above. AdamKesher 15:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I'll adress each of your points,
  • While the blogs are closely related to the subject of our article, the subject of our article is *not* closely related to the blogs. And the requirement is the article's subject being close to the blogs. For instance, an article on Oxford University would not link to an Oxford Student's blog, despite that blog being closely related to the University.
  • Blogs are inherently lower standard, having no peer review or editing. Note that the examples given do have peer review, while blogs and 'news agrigation services' generaly do not. They also generaly provide repetition of opinions and views already identified and referenced in the article.
  • Concerning the image sites and them being "a unique resource". One site is in french, so imediatly disqualified. One site is no longer present, so is moot. The other two sites have problems with verifiability, one being a blog site, and the other being from a politicaly motivated site. The pictures on one site appear to be taken, and without any apparent acknowledgments, from AP sources. This invalidates a claim of it being a unique resource. If you could identify a reliable and verifiable site that provided images of the conflict, for instance an accredited photo-journalist, a link would be suitable.
The most important point to make is these sites are inherently unverifiable. They could be giving us an inside view, and images from the spot, or they could be written by someone in australia, and be cribbing their pictures from AP sources. So we have to question the quality of these links. --Barberio 16:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Barberio, thanks for your response and comments. Here are mine:
  • The purpose of these blogs is to provide a frontline account of the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. For example, the first link is The Muqata جميل في المقاطعة, Israel@War: Special Edition at the Mukataa blog. How can you say that this content is not immediately related to this article?[!] Your analogy with an Oxford student's blog doesn't hold up.
  • I'll leave it to the readers to decide which is higher quality—the blogs listed are web collectives of writers and, to my eye, have high standards—peruse them yourself and please tell me if you disagree.
  • As discussed above, every link that doesn't satisfy WP:V can be labelled as unverifiable, but that doesn't mean that mentioning its existence is prohibited, as you pointed out yourself in WP:EL. For example, the Scientology external links includes the critical Operation Clambake, which does not satisfy WP:V, yet there it is. Why? Because it satisfies the criteria for external links listed above, just as these blogs and external photographs do. Besides, it's simply not true that these photographs are not verifiable: they're press service photos, as you may verify yourself by comparing the images on the website stopdestroyinglebanon.com (this one in particular) to this Macleans article. It's true that this AP photo exists elsewhere, but the compendium of these photos provides the unique resource. Finally, if the site From Israel To Lebanon is down now, it's most likely the target of web attacks or banning for the reality that it presents, as discussed here; it will be back soon. AdamKesher 17:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I note here that Denis Diderot has again deleted these links without discussion here or in the case currently under informal moderation, yet in his edit comments asserts that this has been done per the Talk page. This page for this information moderation is Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-25 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. I will revert this deletion once today. AdamKesher 11:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree - Dennis doesn't have a consensus, and removing them (he's camping!) is a little silly. Still, there's no consensus to keep them in, either. Howabout we just leave them out until the mediation has decided what to do? --Iorek85 12:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I note here that Denis Diderot has again deleted these links without discussion here or in the case currently under informal moderation, yet in his edit comments asserts that this has been done per the Talk page. This page for this informal mediation is Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-25 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. AdamKesher 12:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I note here that Denis Diderot has again deleted these links without discussion here or in the case currently under informal moderation, yet in his edit comments asserts that this has been done per the Talk page. This page for this informal mediation is Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-25 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. AdamKesher 20:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Linking to blogs with original, unverified research is against Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia isn't a web directory. It's an encyclopedia. External links have the same purpose as the article itself. They are to provide NPOV and verified information. This means that the external websites linked to in article should normally be reliable sources. Sometimes it's ok to link to websites that aren't reliable sources as such, but then the point is to provide verified information about opinions and belief. (An article about a political party would normally have an external link to the website of that party. This provides reliable information about that party's opinions.) The blogs with photos and commentary that some eidtors keep adding to this article are not reliable sources. (Perhaps it needs to be pointed out that photos can be manipulated or, when the photos themselves are accurate, portray something else than they are purported to portray. ) They are also not sites that represent the official opinions of some party in the conflict. Therefore I have repeatedly removed them and will do so again. --Denis Diderot 05:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Please take further discussion about this dispute to the informal mediation page Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-25 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, as per the request by the mediator CP/M below: Talk:2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict#Mediation. AdamKesher 15:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

edits by banned editor

This is a sock puppet of banned editor: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=68.1.182.215

Zeq 05:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Who is he a sockpuppet of? I note he's also been banned for 24hrs. --Iorek85 05:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Alberuni#Final_decision - he opreates out of IP address in Atlanta Geogrgia but elsewhere as well. His style is very clear: blant anti-Israel propeganda.

Citecheck / Tens of thousands of Israelis displaced?

In the sidebox it says that tens of thousands of Israelis have been displaced and then links to http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/22/AR2006072200301_2.html as the source. Where on that page does it mention Israelis being displaced? This bit is the only part where it talks about displaced people:

Many were fleeing Aitaroun, Bint Jbeil and other cities following Israel's urgent evacuation orders to the 300,000 people who live south of the Litani, which runs roughly 25 miles north of the Israeli border.

Maybe the mention of displaced Israelis should be removed until a real source can be found and not just a make-believe one?--216.26.201.10 06:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I noticed this too and forgot to bring it up. I'm glad someone did. IMO the statistic should be removed until it can be cited. Similarly, if someone were to claim that 6 million Lebanese had been displaced, I would want a stat for that too. FightCancer 00:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I found a citation in http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-havoc19jul19,0,314217.story?coll=la-home-headlines in the 7th paragraph. If you think it is good enough, feel free to add it to the article. --Yono 03:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Done. Edison 04:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Oops never mind I see the new reference.--Paraphelion 06:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly, the Washington Post appears to have edited an article which said "tens of thousands of Israelis" had been displaced. A search now of their website for "tens of thousands of Israelis" yields "Israel Stages Operations in Southern Lebanon : Hezbollah Continues to Fire Rockets into Northern... John Ward Anderson and Edward Cody (Edition) 07/22/2006 Article ...homes in the southern areas near the border with Israel and southern sections of Beirut that are Hezbollah strongholds. Tens of thousands of Israelis have fled the border regions of northern Israel to the center of the country, which so far has not been struck... " But when I read that article now, the section disclosed now by the search was not there any longer. It was there when I originally added the "tens of thousands" phrase to the infobox. Life gets more and more like "1984." I guess it pays to archive a copy of any article cited.Edison 04:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

This happens with CNN.com on a daily basis. Last week I used a source that was then changed, however searching for exact terms using their own search engine would bring the article up, even though the article no longer contained those words. Isn't there some kind of journalistic integrity thing about this, like they should say the article was modified or corrected? The NY Times does have an ombudsman, but I doubt CNN does.--Paraphelion 05:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Is there a number of people (displaced?, to me this seems like a voluntary action) from the Israeli government somewhere? Dreg743 07:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Iran's role isn't mentioned in the reference 185

Iran, Syria and Yemen have given support to Lebanon and Hezbollah.[185]. In 186 Iran is mentioned but only by an US official. Iran has supported Hezbollah in the past and quite certainly does so here but I'd like to see a reference that confirms Irans support for Hezbollah. Secondly, 185 mentions Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, Algerian, Sudan and Morocco as supporters (or rather that their cause was justified) of Hezbollah's current actions. -G3, 10:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

What exactly you want to see? Iran saying "yes, we are supporting hezbollah"? -- tasc wordsdeeds 12:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

But what evidence do you have for iran supplying hezbollah with missiles.Yousaf465

Just ban the vandals already!

May we just report every user that vandalises the page and just get them banned immediately? Otherwise this shit will never end. The user Tasc just reverted an article on which we have reached a consensus. ArmanJan 12:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

NO. you haven't reach a consensus. you had a talk in some obscure location with another user. And now you're calling it a consensus. -- tasc wordsdeeds 12:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The article was here for a whole day, it was then moved to the POV section (like many other articles also get moved to other sections). You did not participate in all this time we were discussing the article, and that is not our fault. ArmanJan 13:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Neither did dozens of editors. this is neither discussion nor consensus. And stop adding commercial and broken references!!!!!!!! -- tasc wordsdeeds 13:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Uh, we're talking about it - theres a large section dedicated to it. Quite a few editors are talking about it. There is therefore definitely discussion. But you're right. There is no consensus. Either way. You don't have any consensus for deleting them any more than he does for keeping them. Shall we have a straw poll? Without checking, I'm guessing you're both pretty close to breaking the WP:3RR, so be careful. --Iorek85 13:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I am no where near breaking WP:3RR. However tasc has been banned for edit wars before. ArmanJan 13:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Fork for deletion

Please note that I've placed the article The role of Iran and Syria during the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict on WP:AFD, for the reasons stated on the deletion page. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 14:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Someone has vandalized the article again

Most mentions of damage to Israel or ongoing Hezbollah rocket bombardment got removed again. Put the lock and POV tag back, please!

Opinions on civilian attacks??

To quote Juan Cole as an 'opinion' this issue is misleading and ridiculous. He is known for his support for Arab causes. It is like quoting someone from a Jewish lobby as an opinion without mentioning his background!!! that entire page is out of place should be deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.0.139.87 (talk • contribs) .

If that he is "known for his support of Arab causes" is a reason for his non-appearance in the article, shall we delete all references and comments from anyone at the IDF, who are of course notorious world-wide for their almost staunch support of Israel? Or can we just accept the fact that the article has properly wikilinked Juan Cole, giving anyone ignorant of the guy the opportunity to investigate not only the cited source, but also the bonifides of the individual as well? Additionally, the reference appears to be quoted correctly and even relevantly. mdf 20:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
If its true that he is a staunch supporter of "arab causes" then he should be introduced as such. Introducing him as simply a professor when he has obviously had some one sided commentary and views is leaving out valuable information. Its almost like stating "Ehud Olmert, a lawyer, stated Hezbollahs actions are unjust." Where there is pertinent information, it should be included. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 20:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that this article is already very long, and the limited amount of space we have to present viewpoints should be devoted primarily to the participants. The views of Prime Minister Olmert and Sheik Nasrallah should definitely be presented. Views of NGOs like Human Rights Watch in areas of their expertise are OK to the extent that they are newsworthy (that is, when their press releases get picked up by major newspapers). We simply don't have room for the views of every professor, newspaper columnist, or blogger who has weighed in on this. Sanguinalis 01:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

These sentences are relevant and necessary to provide an analysis of possible reasons for the tactical and strategic reasons each side has in their now widespread attack on civilians. AdamKesher 02:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Am I the only one concerned with article quality?

The introduction is kaput, the orignal strucute of the article (Background, Begining, Response) kaput. Subpages caput.

And it isnt only the expected POV wars, but also quality issue, spelling issues all kinds, structure issues, etc. I guess this is a call for editors to remember that we are trying to make an NPOV encyclopedia here, not some kind of news item. For that try WikiNews--Cerejota 21:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

User Hellznrg accusation of vandalism

Hellznrg accused me of "stealth vandalism" for reverting to its more or less original, consensus form the intro paragraph of the article. I stated the reasons for the edit both here in talk and in the comments of the edit. I ask user Hellznrg to retract and apologize for his uncivil behaivior, and to pleas ein the future read and discuss in the talk pages before doing such a major, and controversial, edit.--Cerejota 22:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

and I ask you to resolve this in private talk, rather than clutter up this page even more. Doom777 19:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Salvage French

Can someone salvage this passage, if indeed the site is reliable. This is backed up by French website, voltairenet.org, which stated on July 18, 2006 that "Here facts: Hezbollah requires since long years the release of prisoners held by Israel, such as Samir el Kantar, imprisoned since 1978, Nassim Nisr and Yahia Skaff which is imprisoned since 1982. In many occasion, it let know that the weather would not fail to be captive in its turn Israeli soldiers - if Ci-that-Ci had been suddenly introduced in Lebanon, and to use them like monnaire of exchange. In a deliberated way, Tsahal sent a commando in the Lebanese back-country to Aïta Al Chaab. It was attacked by Hezbollah, making two prisoners. Israel A then pretends to be attacked and attacked Lebanon. Hezbollah, which prepared to face an Israeli aggression that each one knew imminent since the Syrian withdrawal, drew from the intermediate-range missiles on Israel."[11], whilst the rest of the media stated the lies of the Israel. Israel has used this to justifed the bombing of Lebanon, which has resulted in the death of nearly 400 innocent civilians.

My god, this is one the silliest things I've ever read. Made me crack up in the middle of my workplace. Where do you people get this stuff? Actually, I'm having A tough time understanding what the guy who wrote this really wants.... Tweekerd 13:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Article becoming a JOKE and a BLOG

After seeing this article go back and forth within the matter of seconds over these past two weeks I am now of the opinion Wikipedia should not document "controversial" current events. Rather, these should be re-visited with the clearness and CALMNESS of hindsight. Fair dinkum - have a look at the list of references - its almost as long as the article - each one put there by someone trying to push their side of the story - rather than to show academic research of the topic. Its all a bit like school kids bickering in the playground: I'm right....no I'm right etc. For a start lets take it off the Wikipedia Main Page, then Jimbo or the "wiki community" needs to think about whether a policy should be made about documentation of such contoversial current events. In this case we will never get consensus, just someone reverting more than someone else. 203.15.73.3 04:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Consider that instead of posting here you might have researched the issue with numerous citations to back up your claim the and presented it to Jimbo or somewhere else on wikipedia where they discuss this stuff.--Paraphelion 07:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh well done Paraphelion - great contribution!! Just have a look at the top of this Talk page and there are calls for peer review etc etc. The article has turned into a blog, rather than something of encyclopedic value. The point was about writing the article with the benefit of HINDSIGHT, once everyone has calmed down, or as we say: had a bex and a good lie down!! Love to know why the original heading was changed - must have been too close to the truth hey?Jokeofanarticle 09:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I appreaciate the compliment, thanks. Your point is being well made as it is well referenced doesn't resemble anything anyone might find on a blod.--Paraphelion 10:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

So because it's not perfect, we shouldn't bother at all? --Iorek85 07:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

where did I complain about it not being perfect? And if you read what I said, I suggested we WAIT and write the article later on with some historical significance.Jokeofanarticle 09:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I got what you were saying. I'm saying just because an article on a current event isn't perfect, doesn't mean we shouldn't try. --Iorek85 10:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Iorek85. The article is in bad shape, but is nonetheless a useful resource and much better than no article at all. Sanguinalis 10:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree, this article has become a joke. Israeli members (and anonymous users) have been deleting whole sections, references, changing casualties without reason, changing references to israeli news articles, etc, etc, etc. I gave up on this article, I will do nothing serious until this thing has calmed down. Right now it is useless to edit anything, it will be removed in a matter of seconds. ArmanJan 10:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, every time I open this article it looks more like Anti-Israeli propoganda than the previous time, and less and less like an ecnyclopedic article. Apparently, the anti-Israeli bloc on the net is a strong one, and obviously is very resolved on abusing the widespread popularity of Wikipedia in order to (as usual) make Israel look like a terrible monster who cares about nothing more than destroying the poor Lebanese. regardless of my Israeli POV, this article indeed looks like a joke. No one who actually knows anything will believe this. I have given up on this several days ago already, when it became apparent that there are some wars you can't win, and some users who are really too persistent in their destrcutive and vandalistic efforts (and obviously have too much spare time on their hands). The only thing I update regularly is the casualty reports according to Magen David Adom, who are the Israeli Red Cross. It consoles me a bit that no one has bothered to delete those as well....oh, and ArmanJan - let me just say - Hahahahaha - you and your "friends" are one of the main reasons the article looks like this. Shame for Wikipedia. Tweekerd 10:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I've just stumbled on this article and have only just read it for the first time a couple of minutes ago. Let me give you all my very first thought: It's a bloody miracle that this article has survived in even a half-decent state - so congratulations to all that have made an honest attempt at NPOV editing. But I knew it was going to be too good to be true. It's lines like this one: "Attacks on civilians in Lebanon and Israel on the part of all combatants has been a major component in the conflict." that really gives the game away - a dishonest attempt at fair mindedness and impartiality, when in truth, it reminds me of a certain conflict in the Balkans in the 90s when one side was getting absolutely massacred and the other side was claiming that there were atrocities on both sides. One side is armed with popguns, and the other with the complete arsenal of a modern military state, and it shows. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 11:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

In three comments, we've had some people say that the article is too biased pro Israel, and some say too biased pro Lebanon. Which means in all probablity, it's pretty neutral. :) --Iorek85 11:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I have an opinion similar to 203.15.73.3. I don't believe there is any way to write an article on a "current event" without doing what amounts to original research according to Official Wikipedia Holy Script. Note the careful phrasing "amounts to" -- while it is possible in principle, according to a literal reading of the sacred policies, the practical effect in the end is "original research" when N sources are brought together in one place, and N is "sufficiently large" (as the mathematicians say). Compare the current article to recent CRS report on the business. Utterly, totally, 100% "original research" by WP standards, but nevertheless, far, far, more encyclopedic, informative, and even balanced. mdf 12:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
If it's such a horrendously biased blog to you, why not offer a solution? Hell, be the solution. Otherwise, hunker in your bunker with all your citations until this blows over. Take a glance at Hitler and Hells Angels for articles long out of immediate events and still rife with controversy, and there's a good idea of how long you'll have to wait. Seems far better to slog on through for the glory of NPOV! Huzzah, Wikipedia, huzzah! Ranieldule 12:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Why not read what I wrote? If bias is the only problem, then the solution is obvious and trivial to implement. mdf 13:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

You could always take it to wikinews? Kim Bruning 14:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


I have followed this article and discussion for the past three days. It is a joke to call it an encylopedia article. Much more like a debate of current events related to the conflict. I must say the article page is very balanced in terms of POV. On the other hand it does not have good continuity of narrative or scope. These things are hard to achieve when the authors are constantly fighting with each other over content and trying to impart their own POV. Proper scope will not come for months or possible years. Anyway I like the article and find this page informative. User:Jeff Bullard 00:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I just want to add http://www.hirhome.com/israel/hezbollah.htm to the end of the links section as it is a novel interpretation of the conflict and a good series of articles. The only rule about adding links is that they cannot be commercial, they cannot be one's own website, and the amount of links that support one side of an argument cannot outweigh the more mainstream view. None of these rules will be broken. 81.129.153.28 14:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

This link would not be acceptable, "Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research. (See Wikipedia:Reliable sources for further information on this guideline.)" see wp:el for the full requirments. I originaly removes links to hirhome.com as it appears to be be an editorial, and makes some leaps of logic when making conclusions, nor is it an accredited media source. hirhome.com simply appears to be the personal opinion blog of Francisco Gil-White, presented as if it were a 'research institute', and thus fails the 'no blogs' rule as well. --Barberio 15:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

If the "no blogs rule" still holds, then why are there about 20 different actual blogs in the links section then? Secondly, whether you believe there to be leaps of logic, there are in fact footnotes for every single claim made in every single article, which supports the idea that it is a reputable source, despite not agreeing with the mainstream view. Furthermore, the external links section seems a perfect place for other viewpoints, after all wikipedia is supposed to present a balanced view, not simply a one-sided one. How about if I add the link, but clarify that it is an opinion piece? 81.129.153.28 16:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we should avoid using blogs in the links section. I already removed 3 before if you know of other please inform me so I can remove those as well. While I am not taking a side on this particular "source" I would like to point out that footnotes do not make a source reliable. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 17:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I support adding this link, but explaining it is a viewpoint. M. Butterfly 17:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I also support adding the link. perhaps we should split the external links into multiple sections - have a list of pro-israeli links, another for pro-hezbollah ones. putting the hirhome series on the current conflict under the pro-israeli banner would let people know in advance that it explains a viewpoint. also, in response to user zerofaults: hirhome is not a blog. if anybody is confused about what a blog is, go to wiki's own article on blog and note that blogs are characterized by 1) reverse chronological order of entries 2) trackback features and 3) user comments. hirhome has none of these features. Cmart 21:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah HIR isn't a blog at all - it's a collection of pieces on current events and history in a scholarly style with references. If we separate the links as Cmart says then everyone will know very well exactly what kind of link they are going to, so I think we should just add it and divide the links into pro-Israel and pro-Hezbollah. Ryan4Talk 23:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Where are the kidnapped soldiers?

I don't see anything about the 2 kidnapped soldiers in the info box.....Where did it go??? I'm adding them as it seems it was removed by vandals Tweekerd 15:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

captured, not kidnapped.--Cerejota 17:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

New page

...Ayta al-Sha`b incident created. Beginning of conflict paragraph shortened.--TheFEARgod 18:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

That article will be deleted, becaues having an article for the beginning of a conflict, whose name alone supports one of the sides, is the most NPOV we saw in this debate. You have one hour to make modifications enough for me not to delete it, and merge it back with Beginning of Conflict Doom777 19:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
You may want to avoid bossing people around, its a violation of WP:OWN. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 19:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I am just brining my intentions to everyone's attention and giving people opportunity to challenge them. If you think I am wrong in doing this, tell me why, and we'll continue discussion about it.Doom777 19:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Giving someone 1 hour to make a change when they may not even still be on or around their computer is the problem. As I said, bossing people around is the why. Since you do not own the article, you hardly have a right to give people a deadline to edit it by. I am not saying what you want to edit is wrong or right, just that you may want to avoid telling people what to do and by when. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 20:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
So what do you propose I should have said? --Doom777 02:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry I cant teach you how not to be rude. How about not demanding something be done in an hour? --zero faults |sockpuppets| 15:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Partial revert completed. Begining of Conflict paragraph restored, Ayta al-Sha'b incident article is marked for deletion. The article was useless, and very heavy POV. We can continue arguing about it here.--Doom777 20:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

HEY! My intetion was only to make this page less crowded!!!--TheFEARgod 22:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Video of the shot up ambulances

I made a section for video footage of the alleged shot up ambulances outside Tyre but it got removed. How come?

Put it back in. Was it well written? Hope so. +ILike2BeAnonymous 04:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
No it was just 1 link to the video and an interview- that entire bottom section is gone still, the blogs too. Why are people vandalising this article so much?

Lebanon's PM Praises Hezbollah

Can we include that in the article? There was recently a broken news story about how Lebanon's PM praised Hezbollah for what they did and how Lebanon owes them a debt of gratitude. (I am paraphrasing, but I think this should be included in the article. After all, it seems that anything negative about Israel is included, I'm surprised nobody posted that Ehud Olmert picks his nose and flicks it into international territory.) Yossiea 14:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

This was the president of Lebanon, the pm is mostly against. Lebanon politics reserve seats (even presidential and pm positions) to certain religions and ideologies. --200.88.223.98 15:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


By Hezbollah

The article's "By Hezbollah" section has this paragraph. Would someone mind explaining where this source talks about Hezbollah allegedly hiding equipment near UNFIL or hospitals in the hopes....?

Hezbollah frequently fires missiles and hides equipment and troops near UNFIL positions and civilian sites, including Mosques, hospitals, and private homes in the hope that Isreal forces would either not retaliate or would give Hezbollah a propaganda tool when return fire hits these human shields.[12]

How can this website possibly know the hopes of Hezbollah? These claims are pure speculation. Just because the article says something doesn't mean it's true. It includes no quotations from the UN or Hezbollah. Rather than stating these claims as fact we should designate a source and let readers decide for themselves. After all, would it be fair to say that Israel hides equipment and troops near UNFIL positions and hospitals without sourcing the claim?

That's fine. TewfikTalk 21:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

'Disproportionate' in What Moral Universe?

What other country, when attacked in an unprovoked aggression across a recognized international frontier, is then put on a countdown clock by the world, given a limited time window in which to fight back, regardless of whether it has restored its own security?

What other country sustains 1,500 indiscriminate rocket attacks into its cities -- every one designed to kill, maim and terrorize civilians -- and is then vilified by the world when it tries to destroy the enemy's infrastructure and strongholds with precision-guided munitions that sometimes have the unintended but unavoidable consequence of collateral civilian death and suffering?


To hear the world pass judgment on the Israel-Hezbollah war as it unfolds is to live in an Orwellian moral universe. With a few significant exceptions (the leadership of the United States, Britain, Australia, Canada and a very few others), the world -- governments, the media, U.N. bureaucrats -- has completely lost its moral bearings.

The word that obviates all thinking and magically inverts victim into aggressor is "disproportionate," as in the universally decried "disproportionate Israeli response."

When the United States was attacked at Pearl Harbor, it did not respond with a parallel "proportionate" attack on a Japanese naval base. It launched a four-year campaign that killed millions of Japanese, reduced Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki to cinders, and turned the Japanese home islands into rubble and ruin.

Disproportionate? No. When one is wantonly attacked by an aggressor, one has every right -- legal and moral -- to carry the fight until the aggressor is disarmed and so disabled that it cannot threaten one's security again. That's what it took with Japan.

Britain was never invaded by Germany in World War II. Did it respond to the Blitz and V-1 and V-2 rockets with "proportionate" aerial bombardment of Germany? Of course not. Churchill orchestrated the greatest air campaign and land invasion in history, which flattened and utterly destroyed Germany, killing untold innocent German women and children in the process.

The perversity of today's international outcry lies in the fact that there is indeed a disproportion in this war, a radical moral asymmetry between Hezbollah and Israel: Hezbollah is deliberately trying to create civilian casualties on both sides while Israel is deliberately trying to minimize civilian casualties, also on both sides.

In perhaps the most blatant terror campaign from the air since the London Blitz, Hezbollah is raining rockets on Israeli cities and villages. These rockets are packed with ball bearings that can penetrate automobiles and shred human flesh. They are meant to kill and maim. And they do.

But it is a dual campaign. Israeli innocents must die in order for Israel to be terrorized. But Lebanese innocents must also die in order for Israel to be demonized, which is why Hezbollah hides its fighters, its rockets, its launchers, its entire infrastructure among civilians. Creating human shields is a war crime. It is also a Hezbollah specialty.

On Wednesday CNN cameras showed destruction in Tyre. What does Israel have against Tyre and its inhabitants? Nothing. But the long-range Hezbollah rockets that have been raining terror on Haifa are based in Tyre. What is Israel to do? Leave untouched the launch sites that are deliberately placed in built-up areas?

Had Israel wanted to destroy Lebanese civilian infrastructure, it would have turned out the lights in Beirut in the first hour of the war, destroying the billion-dollar power grid and setting back Lebanon 20 years. It did not do that. Instead it attacked dual-use infrastructure -- bridges, roads, airport runways -- and blockaded Lebanon's ports to prevent the reinforcement and resupply of Hezbollah. Ten thousand Katyusha rockets are enough. Israel was not going to allow Hezbollah 10,000 more.

Israel's response to Hezbollah has been to use the most precise weaponry and targeting it can. It has no interest, no desire to kill Lebanese civilians. Does anyone imagine that it could not have leveled south Lebanon, to say nothing of Beirut? Instead, in the bitter fight against Hezbollah in southern Lebanon, it has repeatedly dropped leaflets, issued warnings, sent messages by radio and even phone text to Lebanese villagers to evacuate so that they would not be harmed.

Israel knows that these leaflets and warnings give the Hezbollah fighters time to escape and regroup. The advance notification as to where the next attack is coming has allowed Hezbollah to set up elaborate ambushes. The result? Unexpectedly high Israeli infantry casualties. Moral scrupulousness paid in blood. Israeli soldiers die so that Lebanese civilians will not, and who does the international community condemn for disregarding civilian life?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zeq (talk • contribs).

1. Please try to respect us and sign your edits. Its so easy there is a button for it. And I have seen you do it before, althought you also have this tendency not to sign.

2. We all surely know that wikipedia is not a soapbox. So please, in the interest of continuing to edit a great encyclopedia, refrain in the future from this type of flame war fodder.

3. People, please ignore and disregard this, and lets stick to trying to come up with a manageable encyclopedic entry. Do not bite the flame bait. Do not express your utter repulsion or complete support. Open a blog, go to Zeq's user talk page or something, but keep it away from here.

4. Zeq: please do not disrupt the flow of conversation and debate here again with irrelevant POV. You have turned other pages into circuses, and in some cases have been banned for a year from editing there. So I seriously question your judgement, and other users, should be aware of this.

5. AFter a while I am speedly archiving this, unless there is opposition from well known editors, regardless of POV. And well known means no meatpuppets or sockpuppets please.--Cerejota 06:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Delete it. The talk page is for discussing the article, not blogging. --Iorek85 07:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

  1. ^ "UN warning on Mid-East war crimes". BBC. 2006-07-20. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  2. ^ "Toll Rises in Middle East". New York Times. 2006-07-19. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  3. ^ "'Is this the price to pay?' Lebanese PM asks". CBC. 2006-07-19. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  4. ^ "U.N. post hit in Israel-Hezbollah fighting". Associated Press. 2006-07-21. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  5. ^ a b "Lebanon under Israeli attack: Sunday Roundup". Daily Star (Lebanon). 2006-07-16. Retrieved 2006-07-20. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help)
  6. ^ a b "Lebanon Accuses Israel of Using Internationally Prohibited Weapons Against Civilians". Naharnet. 2006-07-16. Retrieved 2006-07-20. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help)
  7. ^ "Updated report on the war in Lebanon — Day 8". Ya Libnan. 2006-07-19. Retrieved 2006-07-20. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help)
  8. ^ "Israel uses banned weapons against Lebanese civilians". Aljazeera. 2006-07-17. Retrieved 2006-07-20. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help)
  9. ^ "Israel, Lebanon Wage War Of Words". CBS News. 2006-07-16. Retrieved 2006-07-21. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  10. ^ "Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons". GlobalSecurity.org. 1980-10-10. Retrieved 2006-07-20. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help); Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  11. ^ "Western news services agreeing victims of the Israeli military censure". www.voltairenet.org. 2006-07-18. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  12. ^ http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/israel/articles/20060726.aspx
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:2006_Lebanon_War/Archive_10&oldid=1150708942"